Menu

What it really means if Trump addresses the March for Life

Game changer? Raise the stakes? He actually means that he does not want the United States to die so that global power brokers, (for whom abortion is, for all practical purposes, a sacrament), can divide up the remains? From Katie Pavlich at Townhall:

“Since his first day in office, President Trump has remained steadfast on his campaign promises to the pro-life cause and has actively worked to protect the unborn…We welcome our 45th President, Donald Trump, to the 45th annual March for Life,” March for Life President Jeanne Mancini said in a statement. “Over the past year, the Trump administration has significantly advanced pro-life policy, and it is with great confidence that, under his leadership, we expect to see other pro-life achievements in the years to come.”

Last year, Vice President-elect Mike Pence and White House senior advisor and former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway gave speeches at the annual event. House Speaker Paul Ryan will also speak this year.

The March for Life happens every year, with hundreds-of-thousands of pro-life activists braving cold weather conditions in a push to end abortion. This year marks the 45th since the march was started after Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. It is America’s largest pro-life event and people from around the country attend. More.

Reality check: Trump had better have good security. The last sitting president who addressed a monstrous evil—the legal forced labour, selling as commodities, flogging, mutilation, and murder of humans beings (African American slavery)—was Lincoln, also a Republican, who was later assassinated in office on that account.

“Though the march’s slogan, “a voice for the voiceless,” refers to what participants characterize as unborn children, it might well double for the participants themselves, many of whom see their values and their faith as at odds with an increasingly secular culture. ”

Love it! The pro-lifers “characterize” unborn children as unborn children? That would be as crazy as characterizing enslaved African American property as human beings. Feminists deserve no pity in this matter because they did not respond to violence against Muslim women like Aqsa Parvez except to blather about different cultures and global inequity. In other words, what feminists are really for is violence against weaker human beings.

And that will forever define them. Which is too bad. But at least they chose it.

See also: History walk 2010: Aqsa Parvez (honour killing victim) and the feminists As we debate M103, anyone remember Mary Rogan, Toronto Life, and Aqsa Parvez? Rogan was attacked by feminists for covering an honour killing in the Greater Toronto Area as if it were a serious crime, rather than yet another instance of the West’s cultural insensitivity.